Everyone in life encounters simple, yet challenging concepts that intellectually occupy a person. Sometimes, a common-sense interrogation ends on revealing perplexing situation. On surface, a word meaning can be easily gauged. Native words are understood innately as subconscious mind stores the words without any deliberate endeavour. Nonetheless, it is a big challenge to comprehend word meanings due to the fact that intuitive messages are delivered in conversation. This essay will examine the lexical decomposition of word meaning with an extent that could be accounted for. It will briefly evaluate the lexical decomposition followed by the usefulness and constraints and assesses that, despite short-backs, lexical decomposition is a critical tool for word meaning construction to a larger extent. For research communities the lexical terms and their interpretation has always remained a question of argument. The research has evaluated that there are emotional meaning of a text and its computation. Although, the answer of the question is very significant to understand that to what extent, the word meanings are accounted for lexical decomposition. There are arguments in favour as well as opposing views on the tactic. Another debate is regarding the weightage of meaning postulate on lexical decomposition. Giving any final judgment on the basis of identifying only a few aspects of linguistics is unfair. Therefore, it is very important to analyse the both aspects of the argument.
Buy Word meanings in lexical decomposition essay paper online
Lexical decomposition is the tool of exposing word connotation or meaning by component meaning parts through word breakage. In semantics, it is an alternative for computational analysis and examining their associations. The structuralist impression is maintained in lexical decomposition; that is, the words cannot be comprehended independently. Consequently, component parts are assessed in lexical decomposition analysis of terms (John, 1995). By analysing this visually, words in a language are like a framework – each of them is grounded upon one another; illustrating the place in whole. Functional method works in similar way to evaluate non-specialist language. Geoffrey (2002, p.182) articulates that in natural language, an ordinary is denoted in terms of component groups. Another idea represented by this evaluation is that, word semantic examines the word meaning on the basis of simple semantic parts. Geoffrey (2002, p. 183) further explains that these efforts represent the standards of linguistic tactic.
The extent of word meaning in lexical decomposition has recently become a part of linguistics; although, the history of lexical decomposition is quite extended. John (1995, p. 114) encompasses that lexical decomposition subsequently influences the linguists with an economic and systematic way. Lexemes are hold across by it by grounding the sense-relations. Word meanings are logically and analytically processed and component ideas are multiplied or added which consequently lay the foundation of word definitions. This makes it convenient for all users of the language to comprehend the language and definitions. However, the fact cannot be denied that not all researchers or analysts agree on the simple foundations of lexical decomposition. Many among them are of the view that ideal system approach by an application of lexical decomposition in linguistics is not a highly credited approach. For instance, Bouillon & Busa (2001, p. 44) argue that denotations cannot merely base on lexical entries, even though, denotations could be viewed as dispersed in content. In simple words, relying on common-sense ideas in word meaning is not the only rational approach. Since, word meanings are quite complicated; there are layers of meaning which cannot be decoded or accounted for by an application of simple decomposition. Therefore, it should be noted that classifying lexical decomposition on the basis of its advantages only is not a rational approach. The opponent views should also be examined for fair judgment, so that, the extent of word meanings could be analysed meaningfully.
John (1995) interprets further analysis on the account of term meanings in lexical decomposition; he evaluates that lexical decomposition is assertive and expedient where the focal point is to identify universal sense components in languages. For instance, it is applied to examine the word like ‘walk’ in any language. Lexical decomposition roughly appraises the parallel word ideas: “do not run at a rapid pace”, “no rapid move”, and so forth, which does not only makes it clear to comprehend the language in interrogative forms, but also assists to compare two or more languages for similar concepts or definitions. Some other researchers also advocate lexical decomposition in word meaning accounts. For example, Ray (1992) describes that lexical definitions are imperative at times, when multiple syntactic uses are complicated and an intermediary approach is required to clarify their relationships. This account is true for same lexical items which could not be altered for similar formal structures otherwise. Ray (1992) lays great emphasis on the statement that all those theories that oppose lexical decomposition, do not focus on this layer of meaning. Similarly, Geoffrey (2002, p.183) advocates that properties of individual items can be expediently viewed in lexical definitions. He argues that their relationships can also be identified appropriately; which he refers as, “one-place predicates”.
All the arguments and evidences presented above evaluated that lexical definitions carry prime significance. However there are some fierce opponents who view the accounts of word meaning in lexical decomposition differently. It shows the weak part of lexical evaluation in linguistics. For example, one of the shortcomings is that, we are bound in social and cultural premises. In each culture there are some nuances in word meaning which cannot be altered successfully or partitioned by lexical decomposition. John (1995) also examines the weaknesses of this system. He determines the inadequacies by an example that how in English, ‘boy’ and ‘man’ are perceived contradictory which does not hold true for ‘girl’ and ‘woman’ (John, 1995, p. 115). The native English speakers instantly understand these terms as it is a part of their cultural modulation. However, these terms cannot be disposed into their component parts. In broader terms, the extent of word meaning in lexical decomposition can only be ‘concretes’ and not the ‘abstracts’. For example, figurative language is based only on abstract imaginations and perceptions and lexical decomposition cannot examine metaphorical or figurative languages efficaciously. These are culture-oriented and nuanced terms; therefore, they undermine the value of lexical decomposition as an approach to evaluate world languages. Even, illustrating and defining many other concrete terms in language, like ‘elephant’, is also very complicated in lexical decomposition, as ‘elephant’ is denoted in figurative terms. Pamela & Ricardo (1999) also oppose lexical decomposition as an immaculate system. They argue that lexical decomposition cannot cover many facets of word meanings magnificently. On the basis of all this argument, it can be evaluated that in linguistics, the word meaning cannot be examined on profound basis if cultural and social aspects are neglected.
Despite these limitations, proponents of lexical decomposition consider it a fully compatible system in various semantics (John, 1995, p. 117). They evaluate that lexical decomposition is the basis of establishing word relationships; as, it examines the sense-relation of terms that it grasps in its context synonym, hyponomy and entailment. According to James, Brenden & Michael (2007) lexical decomposition is useful to provide diverse categories of word relationships. It illustrates that despite some inadequacies, overall the lexical decomposition works in a useful manner toward word interpretations in individual words. Some linguists favour meaning postulate practices, which is somehow related to lexical decomposition but does not contain nuanced system of portioning word meanings; which linguists execute to realize the complicated words. As narrated, lexical decomposition in view of linguists is most appropriate for ‘one-place predicates’, but the meaning postulates are useful in ascribing ‘many-place predicators’. Therefore, in place of componential analysis, using meaning postulates is valuable on this extent than lexical decomposition in natural language semantic (Geoffrey, 2002, p. 184).
To conclude, the most suited applications of lexical decomposition cannot be ignored in linguistics. Many linguists, including Ray (1992, p.284) advocate that lexical decomposition adequately established for significant results. It is unfair to single out lexical decomposition on the basis of its impediments to cover all language nuanced and figurative expressions. In order to examine the inherent difficulties of word meaning, neither meaning postulate nor lexical decomposition should be gauged for their perfect systems. Word meanings are infinite in their variations, in different circumstances and situations. Language is gracious only if variety of a language is maintained. In every line of black and white print, the grey shades are present. Recreational swimmer and Olympic champions differ and the word meanings, interpretations and many other contexts differ for them (Pierrette & Busa, 2001, p. 250). The limitations of lexical decomposition also refer to limitations of linguistics which brings down the indefinability of language. According to Ray (1992, p. 283), the word meanings always have uncertain margins and various sort of indeterminacies; since, it represents the nature of language. The lexical decomposition is bound in culture-oriented and limits according to social and cultural aspects. Considering lexical decomposition as the perfect tool is not a sensible statement. The variations in linguistics and word meanings and their logical arguments should be viewed carefully.